Forum:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2
Late Cape Verde Activity? has anyone noticed that cape verde suddenly came alive at the end of September? this season may still have a one-two punch RoswellAtup 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC) :Sort of. There's been Felix, Ingrid and Karen out there this month. Only one of those became a hurricane (Karen still might). Don't forget about Dean in August, though. He was the most classic of the two Cape Verde hurricanes we've had this year. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 13:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ::Wow have we really had 8 storms this month !!!!Jason Rees 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) INVEST reports Is there someplace where there is some text on the INVEST reports? The NRL site doesn't seem to carry text, until it reaches at least tropical depression status. 4.154.5.226 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :Not as far as I know. Bob rulz 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Interesting models I don't know if this is important, but I found a very interesting Fujiwhara interaction on an eight day old CMC forecast. Link 68-100-190-56 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :Edit - If anyone finds any really interesting models, it could be interesting to group them here. Here's one of four cyclones forming (again from CMC): Link 68-100-190-56 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ::Gotta love the CMC. Bob rulz 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :::The most recent one turns Dean into a cat 5. 68-100-190-56 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ::::I wouldn't rule that out. Bob rulz 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I would trust the CMC on that count at this point. 68-100-190-56 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Hmm... Sorry for the extra header, but we have plenty of them don't we? Anyway, there seems to be a (somewhat) consensus on the models that go out that far that in a few days, after this wave of Africa, we will have something tropical in nature. Check out the GFS and you'll see what I mean. Any ideas? IP 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Model predictions I remember last year seeing links to plots of model projections (on Wikipedia of course) for all invests. I can not seem to find the link, does anyone know what I'm talking about? -Runningonbrains 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :Hmm... No, I don't remember that. What kind of format were they in? IP 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Model runs and Model plots. -- RattleMan 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Model sites Could some of you provide the model sites you use? It would be very helpful to quite a lot of us. Thanks, IP 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :Here is a graphic model page that shows all the models at once. http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/omd/ops/weather/plots/storm_96.gif Just change the 96 in the URL to whatever the current invest is to see the model plots. 'Cyclone1(00:56 UTC -31/08/2007) ::Thanks. I've been there before, but frankly, I had no idea what it was ^-^' IP 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 2 Cat5 no other hurricanes Fourth time we have had two Cat 5 hurricanes in a season. This is the first of these where we haven't had an earlier hurricane of another category. This seems pretty weird. If you start looking for things like this, you probably find them nevertheless it still seems weird. crandles 81.86.39.6 12:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :1958 1977 1980 1992 had a category 5 as first hurricane of season so probably not all that weird. crandles 81.86.39.6 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::What probability would you put on it? If first hurricane of season being cat5 is a 1 in ten chance (5 times in 57 years from 1950 when records become reasonable) and there is also a 1 in 10 chance of a second cat 5 in a season (4th time since 1950) then perhaps a 1 in 4 chance (happened in 1960 not in other 2 years / 4 occasions) of no hurricanes between two cat 5 hurricanes. Is 1 in 400 years a reasonable assessment of how unusual? crandles 81.86.39.6 12:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::If there's a 1/10 chance of the first hurricane being a cat5 and a 1/10 chance of the second hurricane being a cat5 that means there's a 1/100 chance of the first two hurricanes being cat5. Pretty simple eh. But that's not a large enough sample set to make any kind of judgement on. Surely climatology and the favorable environment in the caribbean while there's an unfavorable environment elsewhere is more to blame. 66.243.195.90 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Both of you are somewhat incorrect, there has never been a statistical observation of two category fives forming one after another with only one storm in between (in the Atlantic basin) (Ethel was '''NOT a cat 5, and it shouldn't be considered one), thus raw statistics cannot be used to predict the probability of the event. That's pretty scary though. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::Discounting Ethel in 1960, this is the first time the first two hurricanes of the season were Category 5's. Another excuse for me to talk about just how amazing the West Pacific is: In 1997, that basin had three consecutive storms with winds of at least 180 mph! Man, I love that place! -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Then why don't you go live there? ; ) [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :I may well be wrong about Ethel but if so, should List_of_notable_Atlantic_hurricanes#Category_5_hurricanes and Hurricane_Ethel_%281960%29 be edited? :I don't expect my estimate of the odds to be perfect - odds depend on your subjective Bayesian priors. Yes the past isn't necessarily a guide to the future and all that. However it should be possible to make a subjective estimate of the odds and what else are you going to base it on? If there's a 1/10 chance of the first hurricane being a cat5 and a 1/10 chance of the second hurricane being a cat5 that means there's a 1/100 chance of the first two hurricanes being cat5. Pretty simple eh. :Possibly but also possibly wrong. If they are independent yes but there is the possibility that there is an relationship that makes this untrue. What does the data indicate? 24 Cat 5s in 57 years occuring independently would mean an expectation of ~6 years from 1950 with two cat 5 but we have only had 3. Maybe this is just chance or maybe there is a relationship that makes them unlikely to occur in same year/close to one another. A more important question might be whether the answer is changing with time due to global warming. My estimate could be a long way out. :Re "raw statistics cannot be used to predict the probability of the event" they cannot be used to calculate the odds with confidence but if you accept there is going to be huge error margins and still want to try then the raw data may still help - what else you are going to use? - a weather/climate model perhaps but you are still going to need to use the data to see if your model is plausible. crandles 88.105.72.76 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::In a chaotic system like weather, there is no way to predict long term trends on a mesoscale level. Weather forecasts beyond 15 days tend to be unreliable and at 30 days they have no meaning whatsoever. The facts are that there is no way. Plus, this entire chain of reasoning is flawed because there are fluctuations of factors on many levels, from 10 years to hundreds of years. And Ethel was officially a category five, but the results are so dubious that I consider it impossible. But why argue? The facts are that the chances of this are pretty darned small, because it's never happened before. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::Well I think I agree the chain of reasoning here is flawed and we are certainly never going to reach a decision on what the odds are. 'Pretty darn small' is as close as we might get. This crazy odds stuff was intended as a bit of fun. If however we were talking about total hurrince numbers then I would say you are protesting too much - weather forcasting beyond 15/30 days is impossible but that does not mean that climate forecasting is impossible. That would be like saying because I cannot predict the value of the next roll od a fair dice then I cannot predict the total of 1000 dice rolls will be close to 3500. "many levels, from 10 years to hundreds of years" - I can only assume you are implying AMO. The evidence for this is weak compared the evidence for the effect of global warming. AMO possibly does better at explaining hurricane numbers than global warming but if there is better evidence for global warming then it becomes more likely that it is a combination of global warming plus some other effects - perhaps things like deforrestation of Africa causing more dust storms. It is not easy to do attribution but it isn't impossible either. crandles 81.86.39.6 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Two cat5s at landfall without other category hurricanes wow the odds of that are somewhat lower. crandles 81.86.39.6 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :(Create an account, Randles, we'd love to have you.)2007 is now also the first year to see a hurricane make landfall from both oceans on the same day during the past half century. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::June 2, Barry and Barbara. (TS) September 5. Felix and Henriette. (H) Both sets hit North America on the same day as each other. 'Cyclone1(22:24 UTC -5/09/2007) :::I thought he was referring to the fourth! (Henriette made landfall on Baja). That's really something though. Suppose this is a real record breaker in twos. [[User:68-100-190-56|'''IP]] 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ::::According to NHC, the center of Barry didn't officially make landfall until it was a tropical depression. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC) "Discounting Ethel in 1960, this is the first time the first two hurricanes of the season were Category 5's." Even if we DID count Ethel as a Category 5, regardless of accuracy, Abby and Cleo were the first two hurricanes of 1960 and not Donna and Ethel, so 1960 didn't have the first two hurricanes as Category 5s, just the first season where two consecutive named storms were Category 5s. Jake52 My talk 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC) :A well put point. How many records (or other notable circumstances) do we have so far? Add to the list and sign if you can - *As stated by Cyclone1, the first time that on two different occasions two storms in both hurricane basins made landfall on the same day *The first time that two cat 5 landfalls have occurred in one season *Only the fourth (third) time two cat fives have formed in one season *Discounting Ethel, the first time cat five storms have been separated by less than four storms (four storm difference occurring between Wilma and Rita) *The first time that the first two hurricanes of a season were cat fives *The quickest TD-cat 5 intensification on record in ''any basin (Felix) *The third fastest 24-hour intensification in any basin (also Felix) *The ninth most intense Atlantic hurricane ever (Dean) *I believe only the second time that two cat 5s have followed in extraordinarily close tracks (2005 having Katrina and Rita) :Any more? [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ::I don't think that this was the first year we've seen two storms of any strength make landfall from both basins on the same day, but I do believe it was the first time both storms were hurricanes. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC) :::Sorry, meant to fix that, it's the only time when one of the events involved two hurricanes. I still think that Barry could well have been a tropical storm (40 mph) at landfall though. Even so, with or without the hurricane note, there is the fact that if it's happened before, it probably only happened once or twice :P. [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']] 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ::::It's rare, I'll give you that. That I don't think is disputable. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC) This year so far seems to be an "all or nothing" year: either it goes to Cat 5 (and having two storms go Cat 5 in the space of two weeks is impressive enough) or it doesn't make it to Cat 1. The only other time I have seen something similar is the 1984 season before September 23, in which there were two Cat 4s and the rest fizzled out. But the "second half" of the season changed that with Hortense. 147.70.242.40 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :I take it back... a little. There was only Diana before Hortense broke the string. 147.70.242.40 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Just wondering, but if Ingrid forms from TD8, wouldn't that make 2007's season the first season where the number/name system got screwed up? (8th Depression=Ingrid and 9th Depression=Humberto) Jake52 My talk 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: The first Atlantic season, I mean. I believe something similar occured with Dalila and Erick in 2001 Pacific.) :Decidedly not. In fact, it has happened several times. The first that pops into my brain is Inga and Jenny in 1961. The depression that became Jenny formed a full four days before Inga formed. In 1980, ''two storms (Earl and Frances) formed before the depression that became Georges got a name. Those are just two that come to mind. There are unquestionably others. (EDIT: Also, in 1979 during post-analysis of Hurricane Frederic, it was found it had become a tropical storm six hours before Tropical Storm Elena did.) -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Tracking Sites Curious question for you all, what website do you use to track hurricanes, like sites or programs that display cloud cover (to find those AoLs you post) or radar? - Enzo Aquarius 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC) :I use a runner system for NCEP provided models, as well as others, located here, and I also know of a place listed under a similar section a few sections up that Cyclone1 provided. Another place to look is weatherunderground, which compiles tracking models and SHIPS intensity model, as well as a special GFDL runner that shows local cloud cover. Also, the loops on the SSD (look at satellites under get storm info on the NHC) can be very helpful. Look for anything that could become tropical in the models, and you'll find whatever's out there. Good luck with that! [[User:68-100-190-56|'IP']]Talk 20:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ::I use the National Hurricane Center's website. It's hard to get more official than that. They have a trove of cool stuff. Satellite in a myriad of forms (Visible, 4 different IRs, rainfall imagery, sea surface temperatures, and surface winds) There are six storm-specific "floaters" (four in the Atlantic and two in the Eastern Pacific) and six different views of the Atlantic all updated every half hour. They also have 5 different views of the Pacific updated every half hour. If that somehow isn't enough, they have links to other sites that have extensive satellite imagery. You can get still images or loops and radar images and loops from dozens of stations across the nation from Alaska to Miami. Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam. Their advisory postings are up to the minute. You can watch each storm's every breathing minute. Everything is right there for you. I wouldn't hinge my faith on any other place. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury'']] 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) :::Much appreciated! Thanks a bunch! :) - Enzo Aquarius 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)